[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Completing my 100/4 flywheel correspondence

To: <healeys@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: Completing my 100/4 flywheel correspondence
From: "mnhealey" <mnhealey@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:56:22 -0500

This was a very informative and well written response.  Thank you for
sending it!


From: "PETER DAVIS" <paddymck@peoplepc.com>
To: <healeys@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 9:45 AM
Subject: Completing my 100/4 flywheel correspondence

> E-mails I sent yesterday weren't getting through and I noticed Bob
Spidel's having the same problem this morning.
> I had quoted my standard 100M flywheel weight at a massive 43lb, close to
the BCS catalog figure of 45lb, compared to the six cylinder at 30lb.  Gary
Fuqua said he had one from a 100/4 that he thought was stock but only
weighed 34lb.  My original is over 1.25in thick over most of the area with a
large chamfered overhang outside the clutch area.  I think the high weight
is a legacy from it's truck and taxi background.
> What I did for weight saving was fit what I was told is a 100/6 flywheel
at 26lb, which bolts straight on, and works with the original 100/4 clutch
assembly and release bearing.  The only mod is to get two more accurate
dowel holes added to the clutch cover, as the 100/4 is two at 180deg and the
100/6 is three at 120deg but on the same circle diameter.  You could also
move the dowel (high school trigonometry with compasses and a ruler).  Ring
gear is the same part number.
> You can't lose torque with a lighter flywheel but the reduced stored
rotational energy could effect smoothness at low speed and idle.  I have
other mods in my engine, but it still idles quite well at 800rpm and pulls
like a train from low speed, thanks to the long stroke and torque, with
really quick throttle response changing up or down because of the smaller
inertia in the flywheel.
> regards,
> Peter Davis

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>